Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: BethinTheBurbs Date: Nov 6, 2009 9:29am
Forum: texts Subject: Bad link
This link notes the Book: Blood, Sweat and Lipstick, that was written by my Paternal Grandmother, the book on the left is not her book. The book linked on the left is a medical book from the 1700's - 1945 would be a more correct date for her book, not the book dated 1790 that is linked on the left. Please correct this.

I am also checking to see if her book is copywrited. It was published privately so may not be something you can post without permission.

Blood, sweat, and lipstick (1945)

Author: Danenberg, Elsie Florence Nicholas, 1900- [from old catalog]
Volume: 2
Subject: Women
Publisher: New York, Greenberg
Year: 1790
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Digitizing sponsor: Google
Book from the collections of: Harvard University
Collection: americana
Notes: Reproduction of original from the British Library.

This book has an editable web page on Open Library.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Nov 7, 2009 6:37am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Bad link


I found no evidence that this book ever had a copyright registration or renewel filed. It does not really matter if it was a private publication, even if only one book, it still had to have a copyright registration. Other question would then be whether the author was an American citizen at the time?


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Nov 7, 2009 5:19pm
Forum: texts Subject: WARNING; Copyright breach & untold Monkeys with Typewriters

It goes back to the term "Work of Art"

And published privately, or otherwise, everything is a Work of Art.

The following is becoming my work of art, on the IA in the next few hours.
WARNING; Copyright breach & untold Monkeys with Typewriters

Copyright laws apply to, and refer to "Works of Art."

Because there are so many forms of "Works of Art"

One of the more recent new forms of "Works of Art" is the code for computer software.

On a CD like a Windows Install Disk, if you can look really closely, its just one impossibly long string of seemingly randomised zeros and ones.

Therefore copyright applies to how the zeros and ones are sequenced, becuase of cause,they are not random at all. If they were, Bill Gates would not be a billionaire today.

The way a computer OS works, can only be patented, and patents expire a lot sooner than a copyright.

The intention there, by law makers, was to ensure the lone inventor got some reward for his endeavours, and then anybody could use the invention freely, otherwise they thought, without the then free use of a invention, it could hold back improvement in quality of life, and stunt growth in the economy.

It must be a big pain for Mr Bill Gates, that a computer OS can work in other ways, such as Linux and the Ubuntu distribution of Linux. (Writing this, I am a big pain to Bill too, more so because only WIN XP made it possible for me to write this, therefore is he his own worse enemy?)

Basic laws of nature can not be patented by the discoverer. The group that sequenced the human DNA, tried to copyright the sequence, it took a lot of money they were entitled to recover, and it had a legal right too but that sequence was so valuable to the world, that they were denied a copyright.

A modification to a human gene, can not be copyrighted or patented, for the good of mankind's health and well-being, however the procedure for making the modification can be patented.

Back to Bill Gates, his Windows OS is so valuable to the world, and since he has been so well rewarded already, I see no reason whatsoever, that the law makers should not decide today, that the patents on Windows, should go into the public domain, for the good of all mankind.

That is why Bill must put out a new version every few years, and its only a version that sells, if its better than the last version, so after Windows 7, the next version will be called Windows BTD (tm) but everybody will call it Bloated becuase that is what it will be. (I note too, Bill has suggested that Windows 7 will be the last, does that not suggest he agrees any more WILL HAVE be called bloated?)

Now, back to Bill Gates work of art. The copyright applies to the unbroken sequence of zeros and ones on a Windows Install CD.

What would happen, if somebody burns a CD, with the sequence in reverse? Yes, you are right, the CD would be a write off!

And seeing that sequence read in reverse is 100% different from Bill Gates' sequence, and is useless to boot (pun intended), it will be a true work of art, hold it up to the light, watch the colours change.

And of cause, thats got a automatic copyright for the first person doing it!!!!!

And elsewhere in the Pubic Domain, you might find a item of software, that somebody made up for fun, to see what happens, if a PC CD Drive read a CD in reverse.

Copyright is weird!

But what if the CD drive hardware worked in reverse? that is patentable, and not a breach of copyright.

But Bill Gates did 100% win one charge of copyright breach, which was alleged by Apple Computers.

Apple argued that Bill had no right to use the Ctrl/X keyboard combination on Windows, as they thought of it first!!!

Weird? But its all about big amounts of cash keeping the economy going, and lawyers in work.

Maybe that is why Apple has stuck with the one button mouse for so long.

There are only so many ways to code a OS, one day there wont be room for more OS's And that old story, give a infinite number of monkeys a typewriter, at least one will type a perfect copy of War and Peace. But dont try that experiment, before checking if War and Peace is still in copyright.

However, modernised, never ever give a infinite number of monkeys a PC and keyboard, because at least one of them will type out the code for Windows 7. Because you will never be able to tell anybody, because you just breached Bills ownership of the copyright on his Work of Art, Windows 7! and when he hears, he will blow his top, and come looking for you.(and Apple, IBM, Sun, will also come looking for you.

Would it be legal to use that code? Certainly you will be in trouble, for running the code on a PC, so you will never know if the code was perfect. (But then, has Bill's code ever been anywhere near perfect?)

While doing that experiment might teach mankind heaps, it can not be done due to copyright law, therefore copyright laws MUST be holding back society, improvement in mankind's quality of life, and stunt growth in the economy.

That is a real good case, for bringing copyright expiry, down to match patent expiry.

A Sifi short story I read once, written back in the 50s or maybe 60s, a group of monks believed if they wrote down all the possible names of God (Aa to Zz like) God would announce Judgement day, they had worked at it for several life times already, and knew it would take heaps more. So they went and hired one of the new IBM mainframes (With heaps less than the power of a Windows 95 PC), and set it to work.

And found their theory validated! Therefore, please please nobody let infinite numbers of monkeys near PCs and keyboards. And to be on the safe side, all computers, home, etc, even in the Department of Defence should be outlawed.

And, would it not a be a breach of automatic copyright on works of art, if certain names were listed? Such as IBM, better still "Windows 7" Or are they covered by trademarks?

When a trademark, comes into common usage, its no longer protected and goes into the public domain, so anybody want a copy of Windows Ubuntu? (Never happened, as doing that, would turn people away from Ubuntu.)

I am pretty glad Adam and Eve are not around any more, they had the copyright on sax69aphone. And the patent on how to do it. and trademark.


This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-11-08 01:19:39

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Nov 6, 2009 11:17pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Bad link

you need to email with your concerns, and what you want done about it.

Be aware, that even if its not a weekend, they might still take a few days to reply to you, as well as processing your request.

Best wishes, I hope they sort it quickly for you.


As for the copyright question, I forwarded you request to Gerry the copyright expert (He dont belong to the IA) , so he responds sooner than otherwise

This post was modified by Time Traveller on 2009-11-07 07:17:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: BethinTheBurbs Date: Nov 7, 2009 7:29pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Bad link

Thank you for your response and for forwarding the information to Gerry. When I got home I found that the book is copywrighted, but may have expired because it was published in 1945. I'll get back to Gerry when I get further information.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Nov 7, 2009 8:30pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Bad link


It was not uncommon for books to have a copyright notice back then, and the registration was never filed. In any case there apparently is no renewal of the registration which was required for a book published in 1945. It would in any case be a good book to put up since there probably were not many around.